Resentment at 100k

[Arseholeneighbours]

Theres a lot of vitriol spilt towards people being “high earners” at 100k and over. As net contributors, and most likely having made sacrifices, stresses and difficult life decisions, there’s many judgements about life choices , expectations and living within one’s means. What is the motivation to push forward in a career and to try and be as successful as one can if there’s no personal gain? It’s all well and good saying those with the broadest shoulders should take on the most - but to what end?

I’m not saying it’s a marker of success, surely happiness is? I also find it strange to say anyone who has a well paying job has achieved it solely down to luck. Is it lucky that a neurosurgeon just happens to have the intuition to perform brain surgery? Or have they spent years training and specialising?

I’m not bitter, I’m just pointing out it’s a huge disincentive

But - dont a lot of people chose the industry they go into? Not everyone obviously, and its very difficult to get out of poverty, but aside from that I made conscious choices:

• my parents were teachers and I decided not to be a teacher due to earning
• I didn't have a child until my thirties because of my career and earning
• I saved for deposit for a house as was so determined to have one
• I decided not to be a SAH mother because i wanted to keep my career autonomy, but that came with sacrifice in a different way
• I work very hard, made conscious decisions and choices about where to go, what jobs to do etc, which was not easy as an army wife

Luck does form part of it (I was lucky to be born into a middle class family) but i made conscious choices and I am proud of what I have achieved. . I did not 'fall' into an industry. My skills meant I could have been a teacher - I decided not to be. And people I know did too. I am also bringing my DD up to make conscious choices and have a real focus, as a woman, on career autonomy. shit can happen, obviously, but thats important to me

Eh? Maybe they're just people with a different opinion to you? Those people do actually exist...

At the time the £100k limit was introduced, a much lower proportion of the population earned it. Years of fiscal drag has brought more people in now, coupled with large increases in utilities alone means £100k does not go anywhere close to where it did then.

I’m just describing the governments current tax and benefits system.

Most countries offer heavily subsidised childcare to allow their population to work and have families.

Should state services only be for those on low incomes, or are we all contributing to have equal access to quality services when we need them?

Should higher earners be allowed access to state schools and the NHS or should they have to fund this privately too? Why is childcare the outlier?

I don’t get the 100k moaners and I have no sympathy towards them.

and to be clear my partners salary has yo-yoed between 90k and 110k for the last few years. Ironically was 100k+ when the kids were in nursery then down to 90k when they started school. This was by choice so partner could do more family commitments in a slightly less stressful job.

when you earn that much the difference between it didn’t have that much affect in our lifestyle - perhaps because we generally lived quite frugally albeit in the expensive south.

based on my experience I’d say most of the 100k moaners don’t actually realise how frivolous they’re living including mortgage costs and frittering money away on ‘essentials’ that are actually luxuries.

Most of these people get paid fine anyway. Enough to live off around the £30k mark..you can just about manage on £28k in London. And that goes further outside of London. Also I just mentioned starting salaries, people become more senior and get better pay.

A police constable becomes a sergeant for example. Pensions are good anyway.

I don’t get posters who talk about their partners salaries as if it’s relevant

“The concept of the cliff edge is silly. You still take home more at £105k than you do at £99k, it just goes up a bit more slowly.”

Incorrect with childcare. You lose it in full if you earn over the threshold. Which means your effective net pay can decrease by thousands of pounds for earning over it.

With one baby in nursery you are
probably worse off earning £120k vs £100k with the 30 free hours and tax free childcare.

I don't think people understand the 30 free hours 100k cliff edge unless they are living it.

I have two children at nursery. In our Borough, the funding is £8ph. So for 30 hours a week for 38 weeks a year, it is a value of £9120. For two kids, that's £18240.

I earn between £100k and £125k. Already the marginal tax rate for £100-125k is 60% because you lose your tax free personal allowance. Plus I am immediately £18240 a year worse off after tax because of the loss of the free childcare hour.

For everything I earn between £100k and £125k, I will be paying an effective marginal rate of tax of 132.5% - i.e. for every £1 I earn, I pay out £1.33.

I absolutely understand that I am privileged to earn this salary, but you can't argue that the tax system isn't ridiculous for this. I am significantly better off if earn £99k instead of £125k.

Any reasonable person would solve this by working part-time or paying more into their pension (I do both). But that means that the government is missing out on the tax from people who do want to work full time, but cannot for this reason.

I think this is what we get frustrated over.

The amount of posters who say they have a massive mortgage, kids in private school, 2 cars, holidays, regular salon treatments, expensive clothes and food etc and say they’re struggling financially - they’re not struggling, they’re choosing to live above their means and then moaning about it.

I think those who claim to be struggling on these high wages should try and live off £40k a year (still a decent wage) and see how much disposable income they actually do have.

Our combined income is £190k, and nothing in budget affects us – so it's all a bit mad really. Though having combed through it, I can see justifications for many of the rises, even if you're on lower (sort of).

No one is forcing you to pay that. You've chosen to have the children and to work the hours you do. Same way I accepted I'm going to spending all my take home pay on fees whilst my child is in nursery.

I wonder if all these high earners who are complaining now were doing so when the government paid their wages during covid? Hence one of the reasons why the country is in the state it is in now.
I doubt it.

Which net is the same as the benefit cap. Where’s the incentive to work?

Yes everyone makes their own choices. If somebody wants and chooses a low paying career that's on them. It's fine. As long as they aren't living of our tax money and are self sufficient and managing themselves with their income. That's fine

But that's what a high salary is supposed to afford you. An increasingly better lifestyle is why those who strive for an increasingly better salary strive for it. The problem is that the COL has been sharp and brutal. The vast majority were living within their means – and moving house (when there's no other need than financial) and pulling your kids out of their school is absolutely horrible, no matter what your income.

Government never paid wages in our family. We just were all working online and remotely.

I don’t earn £100k, I earn a bit less. I decided that the extra work, hours required and responsibility wasn’t worth the extra money after tax.

£100k isn’t ridiculously wealthy! Especially for those in high cost of living areas where normal family homes are over £1m

£100k doesn’t take you very far nowadays. And in order to maintain this income, one has to work long hours which means extra expenses on childcare. So I don’t understand why all childcare benefits are taken away. Both me and my DH were at over £100k at some point. Let me tell you, it wasn’t comfortable! It was covering the basic expenses and being able to save, but it wasn’t lavish. Yes we CHOSE to live in London with a £2.5k mortgage, but we HAD to pay £2k wraparound care in order to keepnour jobs. We HAD to pay extortionate council tax, seevice charges and high bills. So the left overs were barely visible.

I’m in this bracket. I refuse to be put in the position where I’m paying yet more tax to pay for benefits - I know this will get reaction but I don’t care. I’ve worked very hard to get to the salary I’m at. Long hours and lots of stress - to my shame I’ve missed the odd play at school.
I'm not rolling in it. I have to be careful what I spend.
Ive already discussed reducing my hours with my employer and this has been agreed. Most of my peers are doing the same.
What a total pile of shit this labour government is.

I miss Rishi Sunak. He knew was Labour would do.

Same here. Most senior managers were not put on furlough. All the juniors were so we had to do their job ans our jobs and juggle kids ate home. Covid wasn’t pleasant for anyone earning anything significant (apart from establishing WFH)

I think it’s really hard for people to have sympathy when it’s so different to their situation, which is a vast amount of people in the country.

If you compare average salary vs 100k, with 5% pension contributions and the same student repayments your take home pay is:

Average 30.4k is 2008 a month
100k is 4945 a month

Only 10% of earners are on 76k, 5% 87k and if you earn over 100k you are in the top 4%.

Yes the childcare system should be tapered but I think it would be 75-100k and over 100k is nothing if they brought this in. So nothing would change. Also childcare costs are temporary, during school age it drops massively.

Most average earners are having 1 child or having large age gaps due to costs. It’s become a luxury to have two kids under school age at the same time.

I think the average working when they are having to be super careful to budget for food and gas is never going to give higher earners that much sympathy.

I am not a minimum wage earner or high earner but I can see the frustration from both sides.